Posted on 06/19/2006 7:37:30 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
Later read.
It's really that simple, but difficult for most to absorb. We have to be a nation of laws and not men, else we'll fail. But those laws have to be, as you point out, in pursuance to the Bill of Rights/Constitution, for the Constitution constructs the legal mechanism and contract for our elected officials to adhere to, to prevent infringement of both enumerated and non-enumerated rights of the individual.
I replied
Our failure to hold those elected officials to their constitutional oaths is the real problem, as I see it.
It's a failure of our political 'two party' system. And FR is a perfect example of why that system is not working to restore our Constitution.
I notice you are defending our two party system, R-boy. Care to expand on your point? -- How are our liberties being defended by the present system?
Is our Constitution being honored by either party?
Or an entrepreneur who can't count?
Making fun of our current crop of third-party candidates is not "defending our two party system," so no thanks.
Interesting speech.
"No thanks" -- for what?
If you have to question what trade has to do with illegal immigration then you obviously are forgetting the line of BS we heard from the Clinton's et al about all the "benefits" we'd derive from NAFTA. They lied about our trade balances with Mexico( a healthy surplus has turned into a steadily rising deficit), how it would decrease illegal immigration by creating so many new jobs for Mexicans ( even want to touch that??), plus all the new jobs it would create in this country( an even bigger joke).
The point is this so-called trade agreement created a parasitical relationship between the US and Mexico that now has evolved into a sociological nightmare for healthcare givers, educators, prison officials, etc. Sorry, you just can't focus on one or two aspects of something like this to determine it's impact.......one has to look at the entire impact of NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. on our society to determine it's value.......and so far it's a disaster. If you don'tunderstand that you being disingenuous at best and delusional at worst.
Oh, it's still frowned-upon, it's just that FR is sticking with the technical requirement that the actual articles be different.
I hope so, but he hasn't shown much evidence of it. His stance on illegal immigration, for instance.
Carolyn
oh that thing buzzes my house in Springfield almost every night.
I download my NAU resume to it :)
Bush Sr. was the first to use the words "New World Order" because the Carnegie Institute had just published an influential policy document called "Self Determination in the New World Order". In 1992, this policy paper was published in book form http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0870030183/002-9341899-5438408?v=glance&n=283155 and was completely embraced by Clinton, who hired the authors for influential positions in his Administration.
A review & description of Self Determination in the New World Order is here: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19921201fabook6395/morton-h-halperin-david-j-scheffer-patricia-small/self-determination-in-the-new-world-order.html
It's first real-world application was the break up of Yugoslavia -- with disasterous results.
The people in those states are there own victims, not suing for a republican form of government. When the U.S. Constitution is ratified by any state, the state at that time agreed that there can be no thing in their laws or state constitutions or judges rulings that are repugnant to the supreme law of the land, which of course is the Bill of Rights/U.S. Constitution, which specifically protects and recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The U.S. Constitution recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms and it warns the federal government to not even think about infringing on that right. It is right there in front of their eyes, in black and white -- that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the people -- not the federal government or state governments.
It defies logic why the people would agree that the federal government cannot prevent you from the act of defending your life, and then turn right around and allow the state to prevent you from defending your life? Does not compute.
Carolyn
1,000% agreement!!
Posted with the same certitude used to falsely claim that B4B had inside information about the President's recent trip to Iraq. B4B has ZERO credibility.
I agree. Not saying that Corsi is correct -- as a matter of fact, I think that he may be rather "out there". However, I never heard about "the case of Methenex vs. The State of CA" that he talks about. But if he is correct on this one small point -- that "had Methenex won, the State would have been liable" --this is an enormous issue well worth investigating.
NGO's (some of which are called "think-tanks")have a huge influence on public policy. The issues then get reframed (or repackaged) by politicians for our consumption. Just take a look at what the Carnegie Institute has to say about the US vs. Euro attitudes toward "Human Rights" in the International arena: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101fabook84613/michael-ignatieff/american-exceptionalism-and-human-rights.html
Do you think that this represents the views of most Freepers?
You really think a few words in the Constitution really rule?
As I said before Wolfstar, believe what you'd like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.